1. Lecture: Transactional Memory
Topics: TM implementations

2. Transactions New paradigm to simplify programming
instead of lock-unlock, use transaction begin-end
locks are blocking, transactions execute speculatively
in the hope that there will be no conflicts
Can yield better performance; Eliminates deadlocks
Programmer can freely encapsulate code sections within
transactions and not worry about the impact on
performance and correctness (for the most part)
Programmer specifies the code sections they’d like to see
execute atomically – the hardware takes care of the rest
(provides illusion of atomicity)

3. Transactions Transactional semantics:
when a transaction executes, it is as if the rest of the
system is suspended and the transaction is in isolation
the reads and writes of a transaction happen as if they
are all a single atomic operation
if the above conditions are not met, the transaction
fails to commit (abort) and tries again
transaction begin
read shared variables
arithmetic
write shared variables
transaction end

4. Example
Producer-consumer relationships – producers place tasks at the tail of
a work-queue and consumers pull tasks out of the head
Enqueue Dequeue
transaction begin transaction begin
if (tail == NULL) if (head->next == NULL)
update head and tail update head and tail
else else
update tail update head
transaction end transaction end
With locks, neither thread can proceed in parallel since head/tail may be
updated – with transactions, enqueue and dequeue can proceed in
parallel – transactions will be aborted only if the queue is nearly empty

5. Example Hash table implementation transaction begin index = hash(key);
head = bucket[index];
traverse linked list until key matches
perform operations
transaction end
Most operations will likely not conflict  transactions proceed in parallel
Coarse-grain lock  serialize all operations
Fine-grained locks (one for each bucket)  more complexity, more storage,
concurrent reads not allowed,
concurrent writes to different elements not allowed

6. TM Implementation Cache Cache Caches track read-sets and write-sets
Core
Core
Cache
Cache
Caches track read-sets and write-sets
Writes are made visible only at the end of the transaction
At transaction commit, make your writes visible; others may abort

7. Detecting Conflicts – Basic Implementation
Writes can be cached (can’t be written to memory) – if the
block needs to be evicted, flag an overflow (abort transaction
for now) – on an abort, invalidate the written cache lines
Keep track of read-set and write-set (bits in the cache) for
each transaction
When another transaction commits, compare its write set
with your own read set – a match causes an abort
At transaction end, express intent to commit, broadcast
write-set (transactions can commit in parallel if their
write-sets do not intersect)

8. Summary of TM Benefits As easy to program as coarse-grain locks
Performance similar to fine-grain locks
Avoids deadlock

9. Design Space Data Versioning Eager: based on an undo log
Lazy: based on a write buffer
Conflict Detection
Optimistic detection: check for conflicts at commit time
(proceed optimistically thru transaction)
Pessimistic detection: every read/write checks for
conflicts (reduces work during commit)

10. “Lazy” Implementation
An implementation for a small-scale multiprocessor with
a snooping-based protocol
Lazy versioning and lazy conflict detection
Does not allow transactions to commit in parallel

11. “Lazy” Implementation
When a transaction issues a read, fetch the block in
read-only mode (if not already in cache) and set the
rd-bit for that cache line
When a transaction issues a write, fetch that block in
read-only mode (if not already in cache), set the wr-bit
for that cache line and make changes in cache
If a line with wr-bit set is evicted, the transaction must
be aborted (or must rely on some software mechanism
to handle saving overflowed data)

12. “Lazy” Implementation
When a transaction reaches its end, it must now make
its writes permanent
A central arbiter is contacted (easy on a bus-based system),
the winning transaction holds on to the bus until all written
cache line addresses are broadcasted (this is the commit)
(need not do a writeback until the line is evicted – must
simply invalidate other readers of these cache lines)
When another transaction (that has not yet begun to commit)
sees an invalidation for a line in its rd-set, it realizes its
lack of atomicity and aborts (clears its rd- and wr-bits and
re-starts)

13. “Lazy” Implementation
Lazy versioning: changes are made locally – the “master copy” is
updated only at the end of the transaction
Lazy conflict detection: we are checking for conflicts only when one of
the transactions reaches its end
Aborts are quick (must just clear bits in cache, flush pipeline and
reinstate a register checkpoint)
Commit is slow (must check for conflicts, all the coherence operations
for writes are deferred until transaction end)
No fear of deadlock/livelock – the first transaction to acquire the bus will
commit successfully
Starvation is possible – need additional mechanisms

14. “Lazy” Implementation – Parallel Commits
Writes cannot be rolled back – hence, before allowing
two transactions to commit in parallel, we must ensure
that they do not conflict with each other
One possible implementation: the central arbiter can
collect signatures from each committing transaction
(a compressed representation of all touched addresses)
Arbiter does not grant commit permissions if it detects
a possible conflict with the rd-wr-sets of transactions
that are in the process of committing
The “lazy” design can also work with directory protocols

15. “Eager” Implementation
A write is made permanent immediately (we do not wait
until the end of the transaction)
This means that if some other transaction attempts a
read, the latest value is returned and the memory may
also be updated with this latest value
Can’t lose the old value (in case this transaction is
aborted) – hence, before the write, we copy the old
value into a log (the log is some space in virtual memory
-- the log itself may be in cache, so not too expensive)
This is eager versioning

16. “Eager” Implementation
Since Transaction-A’s writes are made permanent
rightaway, it is possible that another Transaction-B’s
rd/wr miss is re-directed to Tr-A
At this point, we detect a conflict (neither transaction has
reached its end, hence, eager conflict detection): two
transactions handling the same cache line and at least
one of them does a write
One solution: requester stalls: Tr-A sends a NACK to
Tr-B; Tr-B waits and re-tries again; hopefully, Tr-A has
committed and can hand off the latest cache line to B
 neither transaction needs to abort

17. “Eager” Implementation
Can lead to deadlocks: each transaction is waiting for the
other to finish
Need a separate (hw/sw) contention manager to detect
such deadlocks and force one of them to abort
Tr-A Tr-B
write X write Y
… …
read Y read X

18. “Eager” Implementation
Note that if Tr-B is doing a write, it may be forced to stall
because Tr-A may have done a read and does not want to
invalidate its cache line just yet
If new reading transactions keep emerging, Tr-B may be
starved – again, need other sw/hw mechanisms to handle
starvation
Commits are inexpensive (no additional step required);
Aborts are expensive, but rare (must reinstate data from logs)

19. Other Issues Nesting: when one transaction calls another
flat nesting: collapse all nested transactions into one
large transaction
closed nesting: inner transaction’s rd-wr set are included
in outer transaction’s rd-wr set on inner
commit; on an inner conflict, only the
inner transaction is re-started
open nesting: on inner commit, its writes are committed
and not merged with outer transaction’s
commit set
What if a transaction performs I/O?
What if a transaction overflows out of cache?

20. Useful Rules of Thumb
Transactions are often short – more than 95% of them will
fit in cache
Transactions often commit successfully – less than 10%
are aborted
99.9% of transactions don’t perform I/O
Transaction nesting is not common
Amdahl’s Law again: optimize the common case!

21. Discussion “Eager” optimizes the common case and does not waste
energy when there’s a potential conflict
TM implementations require relatively low hardware support
Multiple commercial examples: Sun Rock, AMD ASF,
IBM BG/Q, Intel Haswell

22. Title
Bullet